Date:	Thu, 11 Nov 1999 06:51:01 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	esox1999 AT my-deja DOT com
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: A way to go ring0 with gcc, to deal with virtual addresses ?
In-Reply-To:	<80bmhr$m14$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.991111065039.16947D-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 esox1999 AT my-deja DOT com wrote:

> Hi, I try to go ring0 with gcc. I use a pentium
> with w95.

I don't think you can do it from a DJGPP program running on Windows.
Windows runs DPMI programs at ring 3.

You can do this if you run in plain DOS, and use CWSDPR0 as your DPMI
server.  CWSDPR0 is a ring-0 DPMI server.

> Actually, I can't find the
> equivalent for the opcodes such as sidt, sldt in
> the AT&T syntax.

sidt and sldt should be just fine.  Did you try them?  If so, and if
they failed, please tell the details.

> My aim is to access the physical addresses.

If that is what you need, why do you need to run at ring 0?  Physical
addresses are accessible from a ring-3 program as well, either using
special DPMI functions, or by using the XMS API.

- Raw text -